11 ms·

Well the real answer is to reduce consumption. It can and should be done without sacrificing comfort. This is a very uphill battle against systems that are inte

Well the real answer is to reduce consumption. It can and should be done without sacrificing comfort. This is a very uphill battle against systems that are interested in distracting you by turning your attention towards fads (recycling, electrification, carbon capture) when in reality we need degrowth and permaculture. (Please read this thread a bit more, including my replies, before you tell me what I think degrowth means. I'm only using it to mean "less [economic] growth") In a bit more detail: How about less cars? More effective public transit is good for people and the climate. Let's do away with golf lawns and pools for every house... Perhaps architecture can be adapted to suit the specific location instead of stamping the same stock photo "American house with garage that can fit 4 cars." Look at passive cooling and stuff. [Again, I'm talking about redefining comfort. Is a personal pool and large car and trimmed lawn really, honestly, what makes you comfortable? Or is it more a product of culture and advertising? You're absolutely free to believe either way, and I don't want anyone to force you to do anything.] And honestly, we need to consoom less. Devices should not have a lifecycle of one year. You and I don't really need all these gadgets and trinkets, either. Let's stop buying random things If you think this is a distraction or that it won't work because we can't get everyone to agree: Degrowth and permaculture requires honestly no critical mass. You can choose to buy things that last longer, and use them a bit more. Learn to fix things, etc. These are all nothing but straight benefits to you (more money in your pocket, skills that can make you more valuable in the current system, more time available now that you aren't swiping short form videos all day).

mmaunder 3y ago
Degrowth is a lovely euphemism for the forbidden topic of having less kids. [insert “how dare you” meme]
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  That is not true in the least. A hypothetical three-genetation extended (and frankly, quite large) family of 25 in Bangladesh emits roughly the same amount of CO2 as an average American.
  - mmaunder 3y ago
    Always gets political. It’s humans. We’re doing it. No question about that. Less humans will mitigate it. No question. The conversation always goes to which humans or which political faction. Start with the fact that it’s us. It is us.
    - jonjon16 3y ago
      I usually like to answer this question(?) with a quote from Jordan Peterson (paraphrased), “lift people from poverty and they and their future kids will have more time to worry about a solution”. Personally speaking, to me “controlled childbirth” (unless you are instead suggesting we kill off some people) seems a contingent for the usage of humans as livestock.
      - mmaunder 3y ago
        Reducing the birth rate below 2.2 kids per family on average results in negative population growth. We’re already seeing it in many places world wide as a result of equality and education. Simply creating awareness of the global benefits is enough. We are already facing a catastrophic global population decline mid century which is going to shock the hell out of our forever-growth economic systems. The only question is whether we’ll see a decline soon enough. Humans as livestock? Killing people? Relax dude.
  - bigyikes 3y ago
    What happens when Bangladesh fully modernizes and the average Bangladeshi consumes the same amount of energy as an American today?
    - simpleblend 3y ago
      This is the key. They don't want the third-world to industrialize.
    - polygamous_bat 3y ago
      There is an implicit assumption that "modernization" equates large energy consumption. Carbon emission of a German is half of that of an American, so are Americans twice as "modern" (whatever that means) compared to the average German?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pelasaco 3y ago
  Exactly. Countries with birth rate > 3 should be unacceptable in 2023... One of the main forces driving Europe crazy today.
  - bushbaba 3y ago
    Is it fair to tell an emerging county, hey I made my wealth doing X, however you can’t do X as it’s wrong. Unlikely the emerging country will listen without the prior wealth being shared. And it’s unlikely for wealthy countries to give up their wealth.
    - lovecg 3y ago
      Emerging countries have the benefit of modern technology though. They can buy solar panels and batteries instead of coal plants like everyone else. Also surely we do say just that all the time. X=slavery, child labor, etc.
    - pelasaco 3y ago
      > And it’s unlikely for wealthy countries to give up their wealth Just from 2020 to 2023, more than $24 Billion in interest-free loans were distributed. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/03/31/the-time-is-now-we-must-step-up-support-for-the-poorest-countries https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/03/31/the-time-is... There is no such thing as "enough help", but each country should do its own part, and birth control is for sure important for countries with birth rate > 3 and cannot provide to its people. I came myself from a poor country and I can guarantee that there is no way to develop a long term plan, if the population increases in a high pace. There is no way to allocate money accordingly and create infrastructure in such a pace to support it.
      - bushbaba 3y ago
        24 billion is equivalent to jeff bezo's buying you a Happy Meal at McDonalds, followed by hope you enjoy the shared wealth. US's GDP is 23.32 Trillion, and US collected 5 Trillion in taxes Americans. Wealth sharing would need to be many orders of magnitude more than 24 billion over 3 years.
- bushbaba 3y ago
  We are having less kids though. Give it time and in 30-50 years we’ll have global population shrinkage on our hands. The issue is society as currently structured doesn’t exactly work without population growth.
  - pelasaco 3y ago
    > The issue is society as currently structured There was never better structured society as we have today.. or can you point some period where we were better than now?
- palata 3y ago
  Proving that you don't understand what degrowth is, in one sentence.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  No, it really isn't. But: degrowth to a Westerner usually translates into : the developing world shouldn't develop, and meanwhile I get to keep mine. That also doesn't work. That's the kind of pulling-up-the-ladder-behind-you thinking that gets you world wars. You can have as many children as you want as a nation, but you'll have to do that in more efficient (energy, resources) ways than you did in the past if you are a developed country and you probably can still develop quite a bit if you are a developing country.
badtension 3y ago
> in reality we need degrowth and permaculture Personally, I wholeheartedly agree. Do you see degrowth as a realistic possibility? How would this happen in today's democracies with economic systems relying on GDP growth?
- picture 3y ago
  I believe that optimism is the only solution. Yes, it's pretty bleak, we got economic systems relying on GDP growth with corporations acting as governments, but if we decide "degrowth isn't realistic" then we automatically lose. A tactic that "big oil" et al especially likes to use is to paralyze action that could've been effective if acted on, with doomerism like "oh the climate is too messed up to do anything about, why bother" By believing and spreading optimism, we will see improvement. Which is also why I'm leaving comments like this haha.
- eulgro 3y ago
  How would it happen? On a global level, it don't think it will. But that doesn't prevent us from applying it on a local or personal level.
  - picture 3y ago
    You reminded me! Yes, it needs to start from the local level, in an organic way. But doing anything locally and organically is already winning (participating in local communities is a sorta solution to problems like logistics and politics)
- palata 3y ago
  > Do you see degrowth as a realistic possibility? Degrowth will happen whether we want it or not. Because fossil fuels are not unlimited, and we are close to the global production peak. We don't have any technology that can remotely replace fossil fuels, and we don't remotely have the infrastructure anyway (it's not just about cars: everything relies on oil). There are two ways: chosen degrowth is called "soberty". That's not super sexy, but the alternative (where we don't do it ourselves) is called "poverty". We need to start changing society to degrowth in a controlled manner, for our own sake.
archgoon 3y ago
This proposal is itself a nonsolution and distraction. You're not going to pull 7 billion people along with this. We saw what a fairly massive reduction in consumption looked like during the pandemic. It basically put CO2 levels back to what they were in 2016. That's no where nearly enough.
- JadeNB 3y ago
  > We saw what a fairly massive reduction in consumption looked like during the pandemic. It basically put CO2 levels back to what they were in 2016. That's no where nearly enough. It's not, but an improvement in CO2 levels that's not enough is way better than no improvement unless we can go all the way.
  - DennisP 3y ago
    A 2020-level reduction just slows the disaster down slightly. What we need is a wholesale conversion to a fossil-free civilization. That means building a whole lot of stuff, and we need a growing economy to afford that.
jiofj 3y ago
"Degrowth" is code for "poor people should have fewer things"
- picture 3y ago
  Stop telling me what I mean. No, I believe that degrowth and permaculture are about yourself, not other people. This is why I say comfort cannot be sacrificed, because I see myself in this future too.
  - jiofj 3y ago
    People aren't going to "degrow" by themselves, so governments turned authoritarian will force them, but will do so in a way that won't affect the rich. For example, low emission zones for cars - you have to have a new car to be able to drive in a low emission zone. So, who can afford it? Cheap airplane tickets, make them more expensive - who will be able to afford to fly? Beef contaminates, make it more expensive, same result. You can follow the logic from there.
    - picture 3y ago
      "People aren't going to "degrow" by themselves" is an immediate flaw, because, well, mere ideas were enough to convince me to change some of the ways I act. You're thinking about all this from policy at the global or national scale, but these ideas are closer to the local and organic level It's actually a little concerning how your line of reasoning seems to follow the most dystopian path, can't you see any other way of it happening?
      - jiofj 3y ago
        Low emission zones already exist and have existed for years. "Airplane tickets are too cheap" is a talking point of French politicians recently. It's likely they will do something about it. The EU already has a law in place saying no more regular cars can be sold starting in 2035. Of course, with a nice exception for Ferraris. These dystopian things are happening now, I'm not imagining things.
nvm0n2 3y ago
> It can and should be done without sacrificing comfort ... How about less cars ... Let's do away with golf lawns and pools ... You and I don't really need all these gadgets You went straight from "we don't have to lose anything" to "except of course for cars, lawns, pools and technology in general" apparently without noticing the contradiction. This is a good example of why degrowth advocates have no credibility and always come across as anti-civilization Amish wannabees. There is no such thing as degrowth outside of recessions and wars. If you want to reduce your own consumption, do so! The rest of us who believe in material progress will increase ours to make up for it.
- picture 3y ago
  I think the connection between technology/consumption with comfort is constructed by our system to manipulate you. The concepts are not synonyms. I honestly don't think having a lawn or a big car or pools or the newest devices bring me significant comfort. In fact, I feel like if we did things less capitalist, we'd be more comfortable. How about devices that last longer and don't force fashion on you? (I'm looking at apple removing headphone jack, changing the notch, glued batteries, etc) Further, how about shared pools that can be more comfortable and without requiring maintenance from you? (Or do you hire someone to take care of it for you?) Same with lawns and cars. Why not parks and transit systems?
  - logifail 3y ago
    > Why not parks and transit systems? Where we live the parks are always safe and almost always clean. The same for the transit network. There are plenty of apparently weathy places where that appears not to be the case.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    > I honestly don't think having a lawn or a big car or pools or the newest devices bring me significant comfort. Good for you, then don't bother with them. But you're in a tiny minority. The rest of us do in fact very much enjoy chilling out in a nice private pool surrounded by a big lawn on a warm sunny day, relaxing on an inflatable whilst listening to awesome music streamed to our AirPods whilst we drink chilled beer and wait for friends/family to drive over and join us for an epic grilling session. Normal people don't like these things because we've been "manipulated" by "our system", get a grip. We like these things because they're extremely enjoyable perks of living in the modern world. > I feel like if we did things less capitalist, we'd be more comfortable Ah a watermelon, what an incredibly unexpected plot twist that's never been seen before. The green turns out to be skin-deep, and when you cut it open what's inside is bright red.
trts 3y ago
There is no way this world exists without an authoritarian global government. Have you analyzed the impact of the total elimination of 4 car garages, golf courses, "trinkets", and enforced 5-year upgrades on devices? do those rank among the highest-impact against climate change, or do you just not like them very much? Do you expect that the people who would have the authority to make and enforce these decisions agree with you about which things are important or not, and have also done the cost-benefit analyses correctly and in good faith? And they're resistant to buy-off by the industries that have the most to lose under a degrowth paradigm?
- picture 3y ago
  I never said anything about forcing this idea on other people. I believe that degrowth and permaculture are about yourself, not other people. I believe that this change needs to start from the local level, in an organic way, instead of being signed into law and all dissenters be crushed. By engaging locally, logistics and politics problems that you speak of are pretty much solved. I believe that I can change people's opinion by talking about this possible world, and they are completely free to act how they wish. I also think that doing these things are straight selfish benefits for you (more money in your pocket, skills that can make you more valuable in the current system, more time available now that you aren't swiping short form videos all day)
  - epgui 3y ago
    That’s very optimistic!
    - picture 3y ago
      Sure is! Optimism is our best bet. But also, reading and learning changed my opinion, so I'm confident words can change other's opinions too
      - DangitBobby 3y ago
        I beg to differ. Unwavering optimism that things will be fine is exactly how we got where we are today; decades of knowing global warming is on the horizon with nowhere near enough response.
logifail 3y ago
> How about less cars? More effective public transit is good for people and the climate Well, I'm about to renew the annual rail passes (which cover our entire local region) for two of our children, but this approach only works because we happen to live 5 mins walk from a local station and their school is 10 mins walk from another station, on the same line. Good luck persuading people who don't have the benefit of such "lucky geography" to do the same :/
- picture 3y ago
  I feel like I'm doing a good job of, if not persuading people, at least putting the idea in people's heads by talking about it. Being optimistic is our best bet :)
  - jgilias 3y ago
    I feel like we have been optimistic for far too long. The Paris target is also based on being optimistic about the situation. It’s only when we’re going to swoosh past that target and become very, very realistic about the situation is when _maybe_ we’re going to actually do something as a civilization that might start making things right.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The trouble with "more effective public transit" is that it's really not about having more transit, it's about having higher density housing construction so there are more areas that you can run a subway or a bus and have it full of passengers. In cities this means you have to fight with property owners who want to keep housing costs high by limiting supply. And even if you win it will be years before the necessary amount of new housing is built to even start talking about new mass transit lines, whereas we need to do something now. And in rural areas it's just not going to happen at all. The farmer is always going to have a truck. But it could be an electric truck.
    - logifail 3y ago
      > it's about having higher density housing construction Umm, how would one go about selling that policy? Do enough (any?) people want that? FWIW, my wife and I have spoken at length over the last year about what it would take for us to move, leaving our house and garden and safe streets and clean parks, our open countryside being only a short walk in pretty much every direction, and that our 7 year-old is able to walk the half mile to her primary school on her own every morning... ...and as it stands, there is no job offer _at all_ that would persuade us to move to the city. Especially after what we saw during the pandemic.
whats_a_quasar 3y ago
I agree with you about the steps to take, though I don't think "degrowth" is the right label to that approach. When people say "degrowth" they often mean a reduced standard of living. But it's possible to reduce raw resource utilization while at the same time improving quality of life and building wealth. A high-quality, well-maintained car or a phone that lasts longer is more valuable than the disposable equivalent. Developing dense city centers creates wealth, reduces environmental impact, and improves quality of living all at the same time. In an economy that really is shrinking, things tend towards stasis and people spend much more time fighting over the shrinking pie. A lot of the built environment needs to change to become sustainable, and that's only possible if the economy is vibrant, housing and transportation are plentiful, and people are motivated to improve their communities. I don't know the solution to convincing suburban Americans to buy smaller houses and smaller cars, but I think the only way it works is if there is a positive vision of the future with both more wealth and a healthier planet.
- picture 3y ago
  I didn't realize people had these associations with degrowth. Maybe I should have said "alternative growth" or something.. I think we should decouple wealth and comfort from individual marketable material objects.
  - whats_a_quasar 3y ago
    Ah I think we agree, then! My association with "de-growth" is that it means stopping or reversing GDP growth in order to reduce research consumption. Some degrowth people think that we can continue to increase quality of life in ways that the GDP metric doesn't capture, while others think that quality of life needs to be reduced to preserve the environment. I think we agree then about "alternative growth" or "eco-growth" where GDP and resource consumption are decoupled, where GDP continues to increase while environmental impact simultaneously falls. Most wealthy countries are already actually at that point already - CO2 emissions are falling while they still grow (adjusted for offshore emissions). It's an important point to me because the degrowth people I've encountered are kinda defeatist and I don't think will be able to grow a coalition, but decoupling the environment from growth is eminently doable. Noah Smith is my main influence on this topic: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/people-are-realizing-that-degrowth https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/people-are-realizing-that-degr... https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/degrowth-we-cant-let-it-happen-here https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/degrowth-we-cant-let-it-happen...
itissid 3y ago
> Well the real answer is to reduce consumption. It can and should be done without sacrificing comfort. Comfort Or reducing their standard of living. Remember for most people in the world this they will keep consuming to get to *a* standard and will not care until they get there. One can say that the average person in a sub saharan african country X consumes 1/10th or 1/50th of the carbon that an american does. But unless N generations of X don't rise well above the poverty line they will continue to emit and it will add up by 2100 or 2200. You don't even have to go to sub saharan africa. I believe there is non negligible double digit percentage of this country that is on the "edge" when it comes to many important living factors like Health, Education and Childcare Cost. Any of which when breached make one not care about reducing consumption.
lamontcg 3y ago
As you've seen "degrowth" is a counter-productive argument and you are your own worst enemy and this gives ammunition to the side which claims that climate change is only possible via severe personal sacrifice -- which again reinforces the notion that climate change is an individual problem and failing and the whole "just recycle harder" idea. We need to decarbonize the fucking electrical grid. Just get it done and that addresses the majority of the problem. You'd also probably be better off if you focused on just changing the incentives and regulations which promote disposable culture. The CAFE standards need an overhaul and the Chicken tax needs to go away, that would do wonders towards getting us smaller, cheaper vehicles. Right to repair laws and EU regulations around replaceable batteries that are being imposed now on companies like Apple will help a lot. Better public transportation, sure, but that means building it (which means more economic output and jobs, but differently). But we're not going to manage to forcefully stop a lot of people from consuming, so we need to focus on making that impact less, particularly when it comes to GHGs, because that is more or less an emergency right now. We can have scalable carbon-neutral energy which still powers a lot of economic growth for the future up until we're all dead. And if you argue against that you will lose the broader war for the sake of trying to be a perfectionist (#include <leftists_being_their_own_worst_enemy.h>)
- palata 3y ago
  Hard disagree. Degrowth is the only reasonable future if you understand the big picture: it's all about energy. Climate change and biodiversity loss are consequences of what humans do with abundant energy. Again: biodiversity loss is not due to CO2 at all, yet we are currently living a mass extinction. Replace fossils with nuclear fusion, you may solve climate change, but you will still be in a mass extinction. Now let's be honest, we don't know a technology today that can replace fossil fuels. And fossil fuels are not unlimited (we still have enough to finish messing up the climate, unfortunately, but we are around the peak of production globally right now). So anyway, the days of a world with abundant energy are soon over, you've got to deal with it. That's called degrowth. Either we go into a controlled degrowth, or we go into uncontrolled degrowth (that's poverty, global instability, wars, famines, ...).
  - 3y ago
jshen 3y ago
There’s a ton we can do before we talk about degrowth. Living in dense urban areas vs the suburbs will greatly reduce resource usage.Eating a lot less meat is another thing that’s even easier and will greatly reduce our carbon footprint. While I’m sympathetic to the idea of degrowth, people will not go along with it. Instead I think we should advocate for living in dense areas, eating a lot less meat, reducing waste, etc.
- palata 3y ago
  > There’s a ton we can do before we talk about degrowth. And that's far from being enough. > While I’m sympathetic to the idea of degrowth I think it's the first step. At some point you will realize that it is just not a choice. We will degrow anyway, because fossil fuels are not unlimited, and we can't reasonably replace them. I am not in favour of degrowth because I find it romantic. I am in favour of degrowth because that's how we can control the fall. I'd rather have a hard landing than a complete crash.
  - jshen 3y ago
    > And that's far from being enough. Based on what? We already have optimistic signs in developed countries where emissions per capita have declined. As others have said, no idea how you impose degrowth short of dictatorship
    - palata 3y ago
      > Based on what? Based on the consensus on how much we need to cut our CO2 emissions, and on checking orders of magnitudes on "what we can do before degrowth" (which generally implies replacing fossil fuels with something else, which generally implies extrapolating numbers or hoping for non-existing technology). > We already have optimistic signs in developed countries It's too late to be optimistic unfortunately. We don't need to slightly reduce emissions per capita, we need to drastically cut them. > As others have said, no idea how you impose degrowth short of dictatorship Oh I agree with that (especially in the US). I think we are going towards global world instability, wars and famines (even in developed countries) in our lifetime. Doesn't mean I cannot wish we got reasonable for our own sake. The only thing that can save us is controlled degrowth. Which is a very challenging problem. Yet too many are hoping for CO2 capture and miracle technology. Society will probably collapse, but that sucks.

mmaunder 3y ago

Degrowth is a lovely euphemism for the forbidden topic of having less kids. [insert “how dare you” meme]

polygamous_bat 3y ago
That is not true in the least. A hypothetical three-genetation extended (and frankly, quite large) family of 25 in Bangladesh emits roughly the same amount of CO2 as an average American.
- mmaunder 3y ago
  Always gets political. It’s humans. We’re doing it. No question about that. Less humans will mitigate it. No question. The conversation always goes to which humans or which political faction. Start with the fact that it’s us. It is us.
  - jonjon16 3y ago
    I usually like to answer this question(?) with a quote from Jordan Peterson (paraphrased), “lift people from poverty and they and their future kids will have more time to worry about a solution”. Personally speaking, to me “controlled childbirth” (unless you are instead suggesting we kill off some people) seems a contingent for the usage of humans as livestock.
    - mmaunder 3y ago
      Reducing the birth rate below 2.2 kids per family on average results in negative population growth. We’re already seeing it in many places world wide as a result of equality and education. Simply creating awareness of the global benefits is enough. We are already facing a catastrophic global population decline mid century which is going to shock the hell out of our forever-growth economic systems. The only question is whether we’ll see a decline soon enough. Humans as livestock? Killing people? Relax dude.
- bigyikes 3y ago
  What happens when Bangladesh fully modernizes and the average Bangladeshi consumes the same amount of energy as an American today?
  - simpleblend 3y ago
    This is the key. They don't want the third-world to industrialize.
  - polygamous_bat 3y ago
    There is an implicit assumption that "modernization" equates large energy consumption. Carbon emission of a German is half of that of an American, so are Americans twice as "modern" (whatever that means) compared to the average German?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pelasaco 3y ago
Exactly. Countries with birth rate > 3 should be unacceptable in 2023... One of the main forces driving Europe crazy today.
- bushbaba 3y ago
  Is it fair to tell an emerging county, hey I made my wealth doing X, however you can’t do X as it’s wrong. Unlikely the emerging country will listen without the prior wealth being shared. And it’s unlikely for wealthy countries to give up their wealth.
  - lovecg 3y ago
    Emerging countries have the benefit of modern technology though. They can buy solar panels and batteries instead of coal plants like everyone else. Also surely we do say just that all the time. X=slavery, child labor, etc.
  - pelasaco 3y ago
    > And it’s unlikely for wealthy countries to give up their wealth Just from 2020 to 2023, more than $24 Billion in interest-free loans were distributed. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/03/31/the-time-is-now-we-must-step-up-support-for-the-poorest-countries https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/03/31/the-time-is... There is no such thing as "enough help", but each country should do its own part, and birth control is for sure important for countries with birth rate > 3 and cannot provide to its people. I came myself from a poor country and I can guarantee that there is no way to develop a long term plan, if the population increases in a high pace. There is no way to allocate money accordingly and create infrastructure in such a pace to support it.
    - bushbaba 3y ago
      24 billion is equivalent to jeff bezo's buying you a Happy Meal at McDonalds, followed by hope you enjoy the shared wealth. US's GDP is 23.32 Trillion, and US collected 5 Trillion in taxes Americans. Wealth sharing would need to be many orders of magnitude more than 24 billion over 3 years.
bushbaba 3y ago
We are having less kids though. Give it time and in 30-50 years we’ll have global population shrinkage on our hands. The issue is society as currently structured doesn’t exactly work without population growth.
- pelasaco 3y ago
  > The issue is society as currently structured There was never better structured society as we have today.. or can you point some period where we were better than now?
palata 3y ago
Proving that you don't understand what degrowth is, in one sentence.
jacquesm 3y ago
No, it really isn't. But: degrowth to a Westerner usually translates into : the developing world shouldn't develop, and meanwhile I get to keep mine. That also doesn't work. That's the kind of pulling-up-the-ladder-behind-you thinking that gets you world wars. You can have as many children as you want as a nation, but you'll have to do that in more efficient (energy, resources) ways than you did in the past if you are a developed country and you probably can still develop quite a bit if you are a developing country.

badtension 3y ago

> in reality we need degrowth and permaculture Personally, I wholeheartedly agree. Do you see degrowth as a realistic possibility? How would this happen in today's democracies with economic systems relying on GDP growth?

picture 3y ago
I believe that optimism is the only solution. Yes, it's pretty bleak, we got economic systems relying on GDP growth with corporations acting as governments, but if we decide "degrowth isn't realistic" then we automatically lose. A tactic that "big oil" et al especially likes to use is to paralyze action that could've been effective if acted on, with doomerism like "oh the climate is too messed up to do anything about, why bother" By believing and spreading optimism, we will see improvement. Which is also why I'm leaving comments like this haha.
eulgro 3y ago
How would it happen? On a global level, it don't think it will. But that doesn't prevent us from applying it on a local or personal level.
- picture 3y ago
  You reminded me! Yes, it needs to start from the local level, in an organic way. But doing anything locally and organically is already winning (participating in local communities is a sorta solution to problems like logistics and politics)
palata 3y ago
> Do you see degrowth as a realistic possibility? Degrowth will happen whether we want it or not. Because fossil fuels are not unlimited, and we are close to the global production peak. We don't have any technology that can remotely replace fossil fuels, and we don't remotely have the infrastructure anyway (it's not just about cars: everything relies on oil). There are two ways: chosen degrowth is called "soberty". That's not super sexy, but the alternative (where we don't do it ourselves) is called "poverty". We need to start changing society to degrowth in a controlled manner, for our own sake.

archgoon 3y ago

This proposal is itself a nonsolution and distraction. You're not going to pull 7 billion people along with this. We saw what a fairly massive reduction in consumption looked like during the pandemic. It basically put CO2 levels back to what they were in 2016. That's no where nearly enough.

JadeNB 3y ago
> We saw what a fairly massive reduction in consumption looked like during the pandemic. It basically put CO2 levels back to what they were in 2016. That's no where nearly enough. It's not, but an improvement in CO2 levels that's not enough is way better than no improvement unless we can go all the way.
- DennisP 3y ago
  A 2020-level reduction just slows the disaster down slightly. What we need is a wholesale conversion to a fossil-free civilization. That means building a whole lot of stuff, and we need a growing economy to afford that.

jiofj 3y ago

"Degrowth" is code for "poor people should have fewer things"

picture 3y ago
Stop telling me what I mean. No, I believe that degrowth and permaculture are about yourself, not other people. This is why I say comfort cannot be sacrificed, because I see myself in this future too.
- jiofj 3y ago
  People aren't going to "degrow" by themselves, so governments turned authoritarian will force them, but will do so in a way that won't affect the rich. For example, low emission zones for cars - you have to have a new car to be able to drive in a low emission zone. So, who can afford it? Cheap airplane tickets, make them more expensive - who will be able to afford to fly? Beef contaminates, make it more expensive, same result. You can follow the logic from there.
  - picture 3y ago
    "People aren't going to "degrow" by themselves" is an immediate flaw, because, well, mere ideas were enough to convince me to change some of the ways I act. You're thinking about all this from policy at the global or national scale, but these ideas are closer to the local and organic level It's actually a little concerning how your line of reasoning seems to follow the most dystopian path, can't you see any other way of it happening?
    - jiofj 3y ago
      Low emission zones already exist and have existed for years. "Airplane tickets are too cheap" is a talking point of French politicians recently. It's likely they will do something about it. The EU already has a law in place saying no more regular cars can be sold starting in 2035. Of course, with a nice exception for Ferraris. These dystopian things are happening now, I'm not imagining things.

nvm0n2 3y ago

> It can and should be done without sacrificing comfort ... How about less cars ... Let's do away with golf lawns and pools ... You and I don't really need all these gadgets You went straight from "we don't have to lose anything" to "except of course for cars, lawns, pools and technology in general" apparently without noticing the contradiction. This is a good example of why degrowth advocates have no credibility and always come across as anti-civilization Amish wannabees. There is no such thing as degrowth outside of recessions and wars. If you want to reduce your own consumption, do so! The rest of us who believe in material progress will increase ours to make up for it.

picture 3y ago
I think the connection between technology/consumption with comfort is constructed by our system to manipulate you. The concepts are not synonyms. I honestly don't think having a lawn or a big car or pools or the newest devices bring me significant comfort. In fact, I feel like if we did things less capitalist, we'd be more comfortable. How about devices that last longer and don't force fashion on you? (I'm looking at apple removing headphone jack, changing the notch, glued batteries, etc) Further, how about shared pools that can be more comfortable and without requiring maintenance from you? (Or do you hire someone to take care of it for you?) Same with lawns and cars. Why not parks and transit systems?
- logifail 3y ago
  > Why not parks and transit systems? Where we live the parks are always safe and almost always clean. The same for the transit network. There are plenty of apparently weathy places where that appears not to be the case.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  > I honestly don't think having a lawn or a big car or pools or the newest devices bring me significant comfort. Good for you, then don't bother with them. But you're in a tiny minority. The rest of us do in fact very much enjoy chilling out in a nice private pool surrounded by a big lawn on a warm sunny day, relaxing on an inflatable whilst listening to awesome music streamed to our AirPods whilst we drink chilled beer and wait for friends/family to drive over and join us for an epic grilling session. Normal people don't like these things because we've been "manipulated" by "our system", get a grip. We like these things because they're extremely enjoyable perks of living in the modern world. > I feel like if we did things less capitalist, we'd be more comfortable Ah a watermelon, what an incredibly unexpected plot twist that's never been seen before. The green turns out to be skin-deep, and when you cut it open what's inside is bright red.

trts 3y ago

There is no way this world exists without an authoritarian global government. Have you analyzed the impact of the total elimination of 4 car garages, golf courses, "trinkets", and enforced 5-year upgrades on devices? do those rank among the highest-impact against climate change, or do you just not like them very much? Do you expect that the people who would have the authority to make and enforce these decisions agree with you about which things are important or not, and have also done the cost-benefit analyses correctly and in good faith? And they're resistant to buy-off by the industries that have the most to lose under a degrowth paradigm?

picture 3y ago
I never said anything about forcing this idea on other people. I believe that degrowth and permaculture are about yourself, not other people. I believe that this change needs to start from the local level, in an organic way, instead of being signed into law and all dissenters be crushed. By engaging locally, logistics and politics problems that you speak of are pretty much solved. I believe that I can change people's opinion by talking about this possible world, and they are completely free to act how they wish. I also think that doing these things are straight selfish benefits for you (more money in your pocket, skills that can make you more valuable in the current system, more time available now that you aren't swiping short form videos all day)
- epgui 3y ago
  That’s very optimistic!
  - picture 3y ago
    Sure is! Optimism is our best bet. But also, reading and learning changed my opinion, so I'm confident words can change other's opinions too
    - DangitBobby 3y ago
      I beg to differ. Unwavering optimism that things will be fine is exactly how we got where we are today; decades of knowing global warming is on the horizon with nowhere near enough response.

logifail 3y ago

> How about less cars? More effective public transit is good for people and the climate Well, I'm about to renew the annual rail passes (which cover our entire local region) for two of our children, but this approach only works because we happen to live 5 mins walk from a local station and their school is 10 mins walk from another station, on the same line. Good luck persuading people who don't have the benefit of such "lucky geography" to do the same :/

picture 3y ago
I feel like I'm doing a good job of, if not persuading people, at least putting the idea in people's heads by talking about it. Being optimistic is our best bet :)
- jgilias 3y ago
  I feel like we have been optimistic for far too long. The Paris target is also based on being optimistic about the situation. It’s only when we’re going to swoosh past that target and become very, very realistic about the situation is when _maybe_ we’re going to actually do something as a civilization that might start making things right.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The trouble with "more effective public transit" is that it's really not about having more transit, it's about having higher density housing construction so there are more areas that you can run a subway or a bus and have it full of passengers. In cities this means you have to fight with property owners who want to keep housing costs high by limiting supply. And even if you win it will be years before the necessary amount of new housing is built to even start talking about new mass transit lines, whereas we need to do something now. And in rural areas it's just not going to happen at all. The farmer is always going to have a truck. But it could be an electric truck.
  - logifail 3y ago
    > it's about having higher density housing construction Umm, how would one go about selling that policy? Do enough (any?) people want that? FWIW, my wife and I have spoken at length over the last year about what it would take for us to move, leaving our house and garden and safe streets and clean parks, our open countryside being only a short walk in pretty much every direction, and that our 7 year-old is able to walk the half mile to her primary school on her own every morning... ...and as it stands, there is no job offer _at all_ that would persuade us to move to the city. Especially after what we saw during the pandemic.

whats_a_quasar 3y ago

I agree with you about the steps to take, though I don't think "degrowth" is the right label to that approach. When people say "degrowth" they often mean a reduced standard of living. But it's possible to reduce raw resource utilization while at the same time improving quality of life and building wealth. A high-quality, well-maintained car or a phone that lasts longer is more valuable than the disposable equivalent. Developing dense city centers creates wealth, reduces environmental impact, and improves quality of living all at the same time. In an economy that really is shrinking, things tend towards stasis and people spend much more time fighting over the shrinking pie. A lot of the built environment needs to change to become sustainable, and that's only possible if the economy is vibrant, housing and transportation are plentiful, and people are motivated to improve their communities. I don't know the solution to convincing suburban Americans to buy smaller houses and smaller cars, but I think the only way it works is if there is a positive vision of the future with both more wealth and a healthier planet.

picture 3y ago
I didn't realize people had these associations with degrowth. Maybe I should have said "alternative growth" or something.. I think we should decouple wealth and comfort from individual marketable material objects.
- whats_a_quasar 3y ago
  Ah I think we agree, then! My association with "de-growth" is that it means stopping or reversing GDP growth in order to reduce research consumption. Some degrowth people think that we can continue to increase quality of life in ways that the GDP metric doesn't capture, while others think that quality of life needs to be reduced to preserve the environment. I think we agree then about "alternative growth" or "eco-growth" where GDP and resource consumption are decoupled, where GDP continues to increase while environmental impact simultaneously falls. Most wealthy countries are already actually at that point already - CO2 emissions are falling while they still grow (adjusted for offshore emissions). It's an important point to me because the degrowth people I've encountered are kinda defeatist and I don't think will be able to grow a coalition, but decoupling the environment from growth is eminently doable. Noah Smith is my main influence on this topic: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/people-are-realizing-that-degrowth https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/people-are-realizing-that-degr... https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/degrowth-we-cant-let-it-happen-here https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/degrowth-we-cant-let-it-happen...

itissid 3y ago

> Well the real answer is to reduce consumption. It can and should be done without sacrificing comfort. Comfort Or reducing their standard of living. Remember for most people in the world this they will keep consuming to get to *a* standard and will not care until they get there. One can say that the average person in a sub saharan african country X consumes 1/10th or 1/50th of the carbon that an american does. But unless N generations of X don't rise well above the poverty line they will continue to emit and it will add up by 2100 or 2200. You don't even have to go to sub saharan africa. I believe there is non negligible double digit percentage of this country that is on the "edge" when it comes to many important living factors like Health, Education and Childcare Cost. Any of which when breached make one not care about reducing consumption.

lamontcg 3y ago

As you've seen "degrowth" is a counter-productive argument and you are your own worst enemy and this gives ammunition to the side which claims that climate change is only possible via severe personal sacrifice -- which again reinforces the notion that climate change is an individual problem and failing and the whole "just recycle harder" idea. We need to decarbonize the fucking electrical grid. Just get it done and that addresses the majority of the problem. You'd also probably be better off if you focused on just changing the incentives and regulations which promote disposable culture. The CAFE standards need an overhaul and the Chicken tax needs to go away, that would do wonders towards getting us smaller, cheaper vehicles. Right to repair laws and EU regulations around replaceable batteries that are being imposed now on companies like Apple will help a lot. Better public transportation, sure, but that means building it (which means more economic output and jobs, but differently). But we're not going to manage to forcefully stop a lot of people from consuming, so we need to focus on making that impact less, particularly when it comes to GHGs, because that is more or less an emergency right now. We can have scalable carbon-neutral energy which still powers a lot of economic growth for the future up until we're all dead. And if you argue against that you will lose the broader war for the sake of trying to be a perfectionist (#include <leftists_being_their_own_worst_enemy.h>)

palata 3y ago
Hard disagree. Degrowth is the only reasonable future if you understand the big picture: it's all about energy. Climate change and biodiversity loss are consequences of what humans do with abundant energy. Again: biodiversity loss is not due to CO2 at all, yet we are currently living a mass extinction. Replace fossils with nuclear fusion, you may solve climate change, but you will still be in a mass extinction. Now let's be honest, we don't know a technology today that can replace fossil fuels. And fossil fuels are not unlimited (we still have enough to finish messing up the climate, unfortunately, but we are around the peak of production globally right now). So anyway, the days of a world with abundant energy are soon over, you've got to deal with it. That's called degrowth. Either we go into a controlled degrowth, or we go into uncontrolled degrowth (that's poverty, global instability, wars, famines, ...).
- 3y ago

jshen 3y ago

There’s a ton we can do before we talk about degrowth. Living in dense urban areas vs the suburbs will greatly reduce resource usage.Eating a lot less meat is another thing that’s even easier and will greatly reduce our carbon footprint. While I’m sympathetic to the idea of degrowth, people will not go along with it. Instead I think we should advocate for living in dense areas, eating a lot less meat, reducing waste, etc.

palata 3y ago
> There’s a ton we can do before we talk about degrowth. And that's far from being enough. > While I’m sympathetic to the idea of degrowth I think it's the first step. At some point you will realize that it is just not a choice. We will degrow anyway, because fossil fuels are not unlimited, and we can't reasonably replace them. I am not in favour of degrowth because I find it romantic. I am in favour of degrowth because that's how we can control the fall. I'd rather have a hard landing than a complete crash.
- jshen 3y ago
  > And that's far from being enough. Based on what? We already have optimistic signs in developed countries where emissions per capita have declined. As others have said, no idea how you impose degrowth short of dictatorship
  - palata 3y ago
    > Based on what? Based on the consensus on how much we need to cut our CO2 emissions, and on checking orders of magnitudes on "what we can do before degrowth" (which generally implies replacing fossil fuels with something else, which generally implies extrapolating numbers or hoping for non-existing technology). > We already have optimistic signs in developed countries It's too late to be optimistic unfortunately. We don't need to slightly reduce emissions per capita, we need to drastically cut them. > As others have said, no idea how you impose degrowth short of dictatorship Oh I agree with that (especially in the US). I think we are going towards global world instability, wars and famines (even in developed countries) in our lifetime. Doesn't mean I cannot wish we got reasonable for our own sake. The only thing that can save us is controlled degrowth. Which is a very challenging problem. Yet too many are hoping for CO2 capture and miracle technology. Society will probably collapse, but that sucks.